Monday, October 15, 2012

Who's to Blame for the Benghazi Incident? Obama? Susan Rice? Hillary Clinton?

I am so sick of the Benghazi issue being hashed out in the media.  Blame is being thrown in all directions.  Additionally, the man that is supposed to be showing leadership for our country, Obama, is showing no indication that it was a planned attack by terrorists...using the word "terrorists" or "terror".  This is absolutely no surprise considering Obama has refused to acknowledge terrorism exists during his presidency.

Now Obama's cronies have started to blame Romney for "stirring things up" by denouncing the attacks right after they happened.  Hmm.  I wonder why they would be doing that.  Could it be an attempt to make Obama look better than the wimp he is to boost his campaign numbers that are lowering as the campaign season is coming to an end?  Could it be that Romney did the presidential thing and addressed the attack immediately as the leader of the United States of American should do in a crisis like this?  Could it be that Obama has never had an interest in International Relations and this incident put that weakness in the forefront of his run for a second term as President?

Here's a glimpse of Axelrod, which speaks for itself...and notice that he looks like they pulled him out of being embalmed and forgot to do the make-up before the open casket...

Now on to Susan Rice.  Did you all notice that each of her interviews looked like they were recorded at the same time and that they may have just plugged the anchor person into the interview?  Wow!  It seriously was crazy that she could say what she said about the Benghazi attacks being protests that already started over a dinky video that was barely seen on Youtube when the rest of the world knew that, first, this was 9/11, second, this was an American Ambassador that was known to have less security than he needed.  Need I go on?  How many people are that stupid?  ...Okay, don't answer that question.  

Here are just four examples of the interviews with Susan Rice.  First of all, I have not respect for the U.N. because they cover what their real agenda is with humanitarian aid and such.  Therefore, I don't respect what she has to say because she is a puppet of the U.N., as is Obama and Hillary Clinton.  Enough said about that.  Here you go with the four examples. 

Now, here is some documentation for what is going on with the blame game.  First, here is what is going on with the blame on Susan Rice.  Mind you, she may not actually deserve what she is getting in negative press, etc., because she is just a puppet of the U.N. with a script that she was not allowed to divert from.

U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice at center of storm over comments on attack in Benghazi

A month after the assault on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, a fateful series of television appearances by Susan E. Rice, the American ambassador to the United Nations, is haunting the Obama administration in the face of allegations that it deliberately attempted to play down suspicions of terrorist involvement.
Rice made the rounds of the Sunday morning talk shows on Sept. 16, five days after the attack in the Libyan city, and in each one she said the fatal assault appeared to have stemmed from a spontaneous protest over an anti-Islam video.
The appearances were part of a gradual increase in the public profile of an administration insider, one eyed as a potential successor to Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state. Today, Rice’s profile has been raised, but hardly in the way that she or her White House supporters would have liked.
The administration’s characterization only days after Rice’s TV appearances that the assault in Libya was a terrorist attack has raised questions about why she attributed the incident to a protest that officials now say did not take place. Republicans have pressed for answers on whether she simply went too far in her assessment or was reading from an administration script that was designed to protect President Obama’s record on national security in an election year.
In an interview Monday with The Washington Post, Rice said she relied on daily updates from intelligence agencies in the days before her television appearances and on a set of talking points prepared for senior members of the administration by intelligence officials. She said there was no attempt to pick and choose among possible explanations for the attack.
“Absolutely not,” Rice said. “It was purely a function of what was provided to us” and had been given to Congress the day before.
Administration officials have risen to her defense. On Monday, Clinton said she wanted to “avoid some kind of political gotcha.”
“I take responsibility” for what happened on Sept. 11, Clinton told CNN in an interview shortly after arriving in Lima, capital of Peru, for a visit.
Republicans have dismissed suggestions that they are playing politics. And Rice’s explanation of her remarks, which echoes that of other administration officials, including Vice President Biden, has not blunted the criticism.
“The facts are there was never a riot,” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said Sundayon “Face the Nation.”
“My belief is that that was known by the administration within 24 hours and, quite frankly, Susan Rice, on your show on September 16th, the president on the 18th and the 25th, kept talking about an attack inspired by a video.”
Furor over comments
The White House has said that it turned to Rice to make the administration’s case on the Benghazi attack because it made sense to have a top diplomat speak to the loss of the U.S. ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens.
Rice has previously said little about the controversy generated by her TV appearances. Aides have said that her comments have been taken out of context and that she stressed at the time that the FBI was still investigating the attack.
Now there's Hillary.  She should have come out with a statement as much as President Obama.  Hillary, again a puppet, seemed to be blind to the fact that Benghazi was an obvious terrorist attack on America.  It wasn't in America, but it was technically on American soil.  
As you know, Hillary Clinton came out with Obama to make a statement well after Romney made his very impressively commanding and direct speech.  Here is what they came out with...puppets for sure!!!

President Obama Speaks on the Attack on Benghazi


Now here is the documentation that the Puppet Masters are blaming Hillary Clinton for the administration's lack of attention to this terrorist incident.  Do you think that Hillary Clinton is going lose her job because of this matter, or do you think that Bill will bail her out with the very large grouping of special lawyers he is gathering for the saving of his wife's reputation.

Is the White House throwing Hillary under the bus on the Benghazi attack?

My guess is no, they wouldn’t dare, but the Daily Caller and Tom Maguire make a fair point. In the span of about 18 hours, we’ve had Biden and Carney each insist that blame for Benghazi’s security failures lies outside the White House. It’s State that’s responsible for protecting U.S. diplomats in the field, which means if the buck doesn’t stop with Obama here, then it must stop with you-know-who. Normally that wouldn’t be a problem, as cabinet members are expected to take the heat for the president when something goes badly wrong. But in this case you-know-who has her eye on running in 2016 — possibly against (heh) Biden himself — and surely doesn’t want Benghazi staining the foreign policy credentials she’s worked hard to build.
Throw Bill Clinton, official Obama campaign surrogate, into the mix and we’ve got the makings of a nuclear clusterfark of ego, ass-covering, presidential ambition, and Clintonian drama. Edward Klein says the chain reaction is already in motion:
In fact, since the convention, Clinton and Obama have had a serious falling-out over two issues: the president’s preparation and lamentable performance in his debate with Mitt Romney, and the question of who should be assigned blame — Obama or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — for the intelligence and security screw-up in Benghazi, Libya…
My sources tell me that Clinton is working on a strategy that will allow Hillary to avoid having Benghazi become a stain on her political fortunes should she decide to run for president in 2016.
Bill Clinton has even gone so far as to seek legal advice about Hillary’s liability in terms of cables and memos that might be subpoenaed by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which this week launched an investigation into the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The committee will also examine the apparent Obama administration cover-up that followed the Benghazi attack.
Finally, I’m told that Bill is playing with various doomsday scenarios, up to and including the idea that Hillary should consider resigning over the issue if the Obama team tries to use her as a scapegoat.
Mickey Kaus sees the plot potentially thickening:
I’m skeptical that O would hang Hillary out to dry, for four reasons. One: She’s the most popular member of the administration, far more popular than even The One himself. Her husband, who’s out on the trail for Obama as I write this, may be even more popular than she is. Why would O want to alienate the Clintons at a moment when he’s desperate to maximize turnout among Democrats? Doing that would damage his re-election chances more than a perfunctory “the buck stops with me” statement on Benghazi.

Hillary Clinton and the Benghazi Blame Game

Hillary Clinton, along with President Obama, initially blamed an anti-Muslim YouTube trailer for spurring on the "spontaneous protests" that got out of control and resulted in the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, where U.S. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service officer Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were murdered.
In an explosive admission, the State Department claims now that they never came to the conclusion that a "video" had anything to do with the terrorist attack. State Department Officials note that the "video" excuse stemmed from the White House.
According to the Daily Mail,
"State Department officials said 'others' in the executive branch concluded initially that the attack was part of a protest against the film, which ridiculed the Prophet Muhammad. That was never the State Department's conclusion, reporters were told."
If this is the case, than the question begs to be asked, why was Ms. Clinton on board with the "YouTube Video" explanation and even more importantly, how did the White House come to the conclusion, if they did not receive it from their own intelligence sources?
The article also notes that U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice was also keen to blame the YouTube video. So where did she get this information, if not from the State Department? Rice held onto the "video" explanation several days after the event, which is important because officials have come out since then to state that they were aware in "real-time" that the attack was not the result of a "protest gone wrong".
On "This Week," on 16-Sept-2012, Rice stated,
"Our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous - not a premeditated - response to what had transpired in Cairo...[where] a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated."
Watch the interview here:
Deroy Mudock has a good timeline of events surrounding the use of the "Innocence of Muslims" as the reason for the attack. He also asks the question,
"Why would Team Obama essentially accuse a video of these murders, even as Lt. Col. Andrew Wood - leader of a 16-man, dedicated military unit withdrawn from Libya last August - called the hit "instantly recognizable" as terrorism?"
The Blame Game
  • The State Department is pointing fingers at the White House for the YouTube video explanation (but takes accountability via Charlene Lamb for ignoring repeated requests for security);
  • The White House, through Obama campaign officials Stephanie Cutter and David Axelrod, blames Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan;
  • Press Secretary Jay Carney Blames "Republicans" and "Millionaires and Billionaires";
Not to mention....
  • Joe Biden claimed during the Vice Presidential debate that the White House knew nothing of security needs in Benghazi;
  • The Mainstream Media blames Mitt Romney for "politicizing" the Benghazi attack.
The elephant in the room is that the video (and it's maker) were convenient scapegoats to deflect from incompetence from the State Department and the White House, whose persistent refusal to recognize that terrorists in the Middle East and elsewhere have actually emboldened groups like Al Qaeda.
This unfortunate conclusion is supported with testimony from Eric Nordstrom last week, who stated that requests for additional security in Libya were ordered not to be made for what he described as "political reasons."
The questions that need to be answered:
Who gave the initial "intelligence" that the YouTube video was the cause of the protests? Why did Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and President Obama persist so long in using the video as an explanation, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary?
Photo Source: AP/Via the Examiner


Monday, October 15 2012

 All Times ET
10:10 AM
The President receives the Presidential Daily Briefing
Kingsmill Resort, Virginia, Williamsburg
Closed Press
Show Detailed Press Information

Published on Sep 12, 2012 by 
President Obama delivers a statement from the Rose Garden about the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya. September 12, 2012.

No comments: